GROK (X)

The Illusive “Hyper Calvinist”

Published by Papa Giorgio

GROK CONVERSATION

Okay Grok, can you dumb down and explain the two article without taking into account our previous conversation:

CONVO ONE

Okay, here’s a super simple, dumbed-down explanation of the two articles from Soteriology101 (written by Leighton Flowers, who strongly disagrees with Calvinism). I’ll explain them like I’m talking to a friend who knows nothing about theology debates.

What the articles are basically about

These two posts are part of a series called “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist.” The author is on a mission to find a real “hyper-Calvinist” — someone who believes in Calvinism (a view that says God controls everything about who gets saved, and humans can’t choose it on their own) but takes it to an extreme level. The author says he’s hunting because Calvinists keep blaming problems in their theology on these mysterious “hyper” people, but he thinks they don’t actually exist.

In plain terms: The author is saying, “Calvinists say ‘That’s not real Calvinism — that’s hyper-Calvinism!’ whenever someone points out weird or tough parts of their beliefs. But where are these hyper people? Show me one!”

Part 1: The Hunt Begins (April 9, 2020)

  • The author looks at popular Calvinist writers (like Tim Challies and Phil Johnson) who list what “hyper-Calvinism” supposedly means. Things like:
    • Not telling everyone the gospel is for them.
    • Saying it’s not everyone’s duty to believe and repent.
    • Denying that God really loves or offers grace to people who aren’t chosen for salvation.
  • These writers say hyper-Calvinists go too far and hurt evangelism (spreading the gospel) because they think only the “chosen” ones can believe anyway.
  • But the author points out: No one calls themselves a hyper-Calvinist. There are no churches, books, or famous people proudly saying “I’m hyper!” When critics name possible examples (like some old theologians or small groups like Primitive Baptists), those people usually say “We’re just being true Calvinists.”
  • His big takeaway: “Hyper-Calvinism” seems like a made-up boogeyman. Calvinists use the label to push away criticism and avoid talking about the hard logical problems in their own normal beliefs (like: If God already decided everything, why bother preaching to everyone?).

He ends by saying the hunt continues — he’s still looking for a real one.

Part 2: Still Hunting (April 16, 2020)

  • This one keeps going and looks at another big Calvinist teacher (Michael Horton from Ligonier Ministries).
  • Horton writes an article defending Calvinism against critics who say it makes God the author (cause) of sin/evil or makes the gospel call fake/insincere.
  • Horton says: “No, that’s not us — that’s a misunderstanding or maybe those hyper-Calvinists over there.”
  • But again, he doesn’t name any actual hyper-Calvinists or give examples. He just quotes official Calvinist documents (like the Canons of Dort or Westminster Confession) and says “We already answered this.”
  • The author calls this out as more dodging:
    • Calvinists invent fancy word categories (like “outward call” vs. “inward call”) to explain why it’s okay to invite everyone to believe even though only some are chosen to respond.
    • They say tough questions are just “mysteries” we can’t figure out.
    • But the author says these are tricks to avoid admitting the logic leads to problems (e.g., if God controls everything, how is the gospel offer genuine? How isn’t God behind evil?).
  • He points to popular Calvinists like John Piper who say God really does control everything (including bad stuff), which sounds a lot like what critics call “hyper.”

Bottom line from both parts: The author thinks “hyper-Calvinism” is mostly a fake target Calvinists point to so they don’t have to defend the full, consistent version of their own theology. No real hyper-Calvinists show up when you actually look — it’s just a way to say “That’s not us!” without fixing the issues critics raise.

In super short: These articles are the author saying, “Calvinists, stop blaming imaginary extremists. Face the hard questions about your beliefs head-on.” He’s basically trolling the idea that there’s some wild fringe group causing all the problems.

A clip from the video at the top:

CONVO TWO

The two articles from Soteriology101.com (a site that critiques Calvinism from a non-Calvinist perspective) are basically one long argument split into two parts. The author is saying that the label “Hyper-Calvinist” is mostly a made-up boogeyman that Calvinists use to dodge real criticisms of their own theology.

Here’s a super simple, dumbed-down breakdown of what each part is saying:

Part 1: “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist – Part 1”

The author claims nobody actually is a “Hyper-Calvinist” in real life — there are no churches, no famous leaders, no confessions of faith, and nobody calls themselves that. It’s like hunting for a unicorn.

  • Calvinists (people who believe in TULIP — Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) sometimes get accused of making evangelism (sharing the gospel) pointless. Why bother telling everyone to believe if God already decided who gets saved?
  • When critics point that out, many Calvinists say, “Oh, that’s not real Calvinism — that’s Hyper-Calvinism!” Then they define Hyper-Calvinism as going “too far” — things like:
    • Saying God doesn’t really love everyone or offer salvation to everyone.
    • Refusing to tell non-believers they should repent and believe (because only the “elect” can).
    • Denying “common grace” (God’s general kindness to all people).
    • Not bothering to evangelize at all.
  • The author says: Those extreme ideas are actually just the logical end of regular Calvinism. If God sovereignly decides everything (including who believes), then the “normal” Calvinist position already weakens the reason to plead with everyone to believe. But instead of admitting the doctrine has that problem, Calvinists blame a fictional “hyper” version and say “we’re not like those guys.”

In short: The “hyper-Calvinist” label is a way for Calvinists to avoid dealing with the tough implications of their own beliefs.

Part 2: “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist – Part 2”

This part looks at a specific article by a well-known Calvinist theologian (Michael Horton) that tries to explain the difference between regular Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

  • Horton lists some “bad” ideas (like God being the author of sin, or the gospel offer being fake/insincere to the non-elect) and blames them on Hyper-Calvinists.
  • The author says: Horton never names any actual Hyper-Calvinists. He just attributes the problematic conclusions to this invisible group, then defends “real” Calvinism with complicated explanations like “mystery,” “compatibilism,” or special categories (e.g., the gospel is “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect”).
  • The author argues these are just word games and dodges. They don’t really solve the logical problems — they just hide them behind “it’s a mystery” or redefine terms.
  • Again: The real issue is with Calvinism itself (e.g., if God controls everything meticulously, how is the gospel offer genuine to people He never planned to save?). Instead of facing that head-on, Calvinists keep pointing at an imaginary extreme version.

Overall message of both parts combined: The author is basically saying: “Stop blaming ‘Hyper-Calvinists’ for the weird or hard-to-defend parts of Calvinism. Those aren’t separate people — they’re just what happens when you take Calvinist ideas all the way without adding extra explanations or ‘mysteries’ to soften them. The hunt for a real Hyper-Calvinist is endless because they don’t exist; it’s a distraction from the actual debate.”

Phil Johnson notes his definition of a hyper-Calvinist, whom he says, “all five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either…

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal) OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace” OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect

#4 I think is a obfuscation of language. All mankind receives “common grace,” AND, all mankind is offered a real choice of “salvific grace.” These people who see God’s attributes in nature prior to the Cross, or even after the cross but where the Gospel had not reached yet. But TULIP denies the ability of man has any option to respond positively to the evidences of God. In other words, God wholly chooses who will be saved. Others like Piper apply that singularity to all aspects of man’s abilities.

Calvinism: God Meticulously Controls Everything | even this post

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. – Westminster Confession, III.I. 
  • Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. – Westminster Confession, V.II. 

  • “So here I see that God’s command is that the sons of Eli ought to listen to and obey their father, yet the will of God was that they would not listen so that He would put them to death.” – Peter Pike
  • “Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.” – Arthur Pink
  • “The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human beings… If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary.” – John Frame
  • “That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless passages of Scripture.” – John Calvin
  • “But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” – John Calvin

John MacArthur Tells Us There Is No Free Will

God controls first as well as secondary causes… in the determinism that has infected the Christian church. This idea is extra Biblical, brought in by Augustinian gnosis and ramped up by Calvin.

Neoplatonism (ca. AD 250) had invented this crucial theodicy by appealing to the inscrutable secret counsels of God, who is fair by definition, regardless of whatever apparent evils he desires and ordains. Prior Christians had never required this implausible and disingenuous attempt at a defense for their God.

Page 235 of “Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique” (excerpt here)

I asked GROK the following:

Can you dumb this down like we are discussion this over coffee…

  • … how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.

John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11

Here is GROK’s input:

Alright, let’s grab that coffee and talk this through like normal people—no big theology words unless we have to, and I’ll explain them right away.

So John Calvin (the 1500s guy who shaped a lot of Protestant thinking) is basically saying: “Look, some people try to defend God by saying He doesn’t want evil stuff to happen—He just kinda allows it or ‘permits’ it, like He’s hands-off. But that’s weak sauce, in Calvin’s view. He thinks the Bible shows God is way more involved: God actually wills (decides and makes happen) even the bad things, and in some sense He’s behind them as their ultimate ‘author’ or source.”

He calls the “God just permits it” idea a flimsy excuse (“frivolous refuge”) because Scripture (in his reading) pictures God actively steering everything—including hardening hearts, inclining people’s wills toward evil when they deserve it, and using wicked people to carry out His judgments.

The key bits:

  • God doesn’t just sit back and go “Eh, okay, let that sin happen if you want.” Nope—He actively works in people’s hearts to turn their desires one way or another.
  • For good people/actions: God does this out of mercy (He chooses to make someone want good).
  • For bad people/actions: He does it “according to their merits” (they deserve judgment, so He inclines them toward evil as part of punishing them fairly).
  • Even so, God still judges and punishes them for what they did—He rewards “according to desert” (what they deserve).

In coffee terms: Imagine you’re watching a movie where the director not only lets the villain do villainous things but actually scripts and directs every move the villain makes—down to the thoughts in their head. The villain is still 100% guilty and evil for choosing/doing it, but nothing happened outside the director’s plan. Calvin’s saying God is that ultimate Director over everything, including the evil plot twists. The “He just permitted it” line feels like downplaying how in control the Director really is.

This ties into his bigger idea of predestination: God has already decided from eternity who gets saved (by His mercy) and who doesn’t (left to their deserved fate), and He sovereignly shapes everything—including sins—to bring that about.

A lot of people (then and now) hear this and go “Whoa, that makes God sound like the author of evil!” Calvin would push back hard: No, because the evil comes from the person’s wicked heart and desires (they really want it, they’re not robots forced against their will). God just sovereignly uses and directs it for His purposes, without being tainted by it Himself. But yeah—he’s not shy about saying God is behind it all, not merely watching from the sidelines.

Modern Calvinists sometimes soften this a bit (they talk more about “permission” but insist it’s not “bare” or passive permission—God ordains what He permits). But Calvin himself? In this passage, he’s pretty blunt:

  • the permission idea is foolish if it pretends God isn’t willing and authoring these things in some real sense.

Heavy stuff over coffee, right? Makes you wonder about free will, justice, and how a good God runs a world with so much darkness. What’s your take—does that framing help, or does it still feel off?

In a wonderful article, I excerpt a long clip from the end of it:

  • Chapter 3 – The Calvinist Theological and Soteriological Doctrines

(from GOOD NEWS APOLOGETICS)

…. Predestination refers to what God will surely do for the believer once that choice is made. Believers are predestined to adoption, sanctification, salvation, and eternal life. Unbelievers are predestined to alienation from God, eternal death, and hell. God has not predestined or predetermined the “obedience of faith” for certain unconditionally elected individuals and the “love of darkness,” “rebellion,” “spiritual alienation,” and “eternal death” for all others.  No doubt, the Bible teaches that there are special divine predeterminations regarding God’s plans and purposes for the world, especially concerning salvation history.  God is personal.  Therefore, we would expect God to act personally in his world with creatures made in his image.  These divine predeterminations apply in special ways to certain individuals and groups.  These individuals are divinely appointed to certain tasks, as in the case of Jesus himself, to be the Christ, our Savior.  The nation of Israel was established by God through the revelation of Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i.e., Israel) and therefore “chosen” by God to fulfill a certain role in salvation history.  Israel is spoken of as God’s “chosen people,” and yet the group was obviously comprised of individuals with free moral agency.  The church also is comprised of individuals designated as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession…” (1 Pet. 2:9) because they believe in God and Christ as the way of salvation.  These believers are referred to in terminology corresponding to the descriptions used of Israel in the Old Testament. The relationship God had with Israel, of which Abraham’s faith is paradigmatic, is now applied to Gentiles who are of the faith of Abraham.  Only now Christ has come, and New Testament believers live on this side of an unfolding salvation history.  Therefore, these New Testament believers – both Jew and Gentile – are now among “the elect” by virtue of being “in Christ” by faith; a faith like that of Abraham, exercised freely upon hearing from God (OT) or the gospel message (NT).  These believers, spoken of in language reminiscent of Israel’s status in the Old Testament, were once “not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (I Pet. 2:10)  Sinners are among “the elect” because they believe in Christ who is the Chosen One, that is, as they “come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious…” (1 Pet. 2:4).

The point is that Scripture testifies to the fact that divine sovereignty cannot mean that God predetermined the minutest details of all human thought and action, along with each person’s eternal destiny, which lands us in an inevitable and nonsensical theistic determinism.  This is not the biblical meaning of “election” or “predestination.”  We know this by virtue of the logical and moral incoherence of the Calvinist interpretations.  An objective, rational, moral assessment of Scripture and human history, from the past to the present, makes evident that theistic determinism is false.  Rather than looking through the lens of theistic determinism, we can see that God’s purposes are realized through his divine actions in relation to submissive and cooperative persons as well as through indifferent or hostile persons.  All that occurs is not decreed to happen as it does by the will of God and therefore caused by God, for this would logically indict God as the author and doer of evil.  Rather, certain actions and events occur by the free decisions of human beings, especially evil doings.  But God is still sovereign.  He can incorporate what he sees fit into his ultimate plans and purposes for the world and mankind by either his direct intervention and spiritual activity and influence, or his final judgment. But the believer has this promise – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Rom. 8:28, NIV). Those who love him are those who put their faith in God and Christ as savior when they heard the call of the message of “good news.”  Those “called according to his purpose” refer to all those who, having heard the “good news” of Jesus Christ, believed it, and have received eternal life. All this was the result of God’s purpose to save mankind in Christ.  It has been God’s purpose to save sinners by sending Christ to die and bring this good news to all from the very beginning (Gen. 3:15).  And this salvation is for everyone. “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Rom. 11:32, NIV)

In addition, God will also bring about a final conquering of all his enemies.  Not all things are good, and God is not responsible for evil acts.  Therefore, God has not ordained “whatsoever comes to pass” as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith.  This is evident in that at Christ’s second coming, he will judge, punish, and rectify evil and injustice.  Again, to believe that God predetermined and is the ultimate cause of the evil he will one day judge and punish would be nonsense.  Furthermore, it impugns the character of God.

The point to note is that divine sovereignty, election, predestination, and foreknowledge do not require theistic determinism.  The scriptures everywhere affirm both God’s sovereignty and substantial, meaningful human freedom and responsibility.  Therefore, God’s sovereignty, biblically defined, cannot be understood as divine determinism but rather should be understood as God’s personal and authoritative involvement in human affairs and his creation.  The scope of divine providence certainly extends to the minutest details regarding his care and concern for his creatures, especially believers.  But divine providence is not divine determinism.  Providence includes God’s ability to intervene in the affairs of this world and on behalf of believers as he wills.  It includes his ability to employ actions that are evil and wrong to serve his purposes (Gen. 50:15-31). This certainly is the biblical testimony regarding divine sovereignty and providence.  If there is “mystery” to be had, it lies here. It does not lie in accepting what we know to be incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Bible. That is just to ignore the God-given rules of logic and our moral intuitions in one’s hermeneutic. Hence, biblical sovereignty and providence cannot be defined as the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinism.  Therefore, Calvinism is untenable and a misinterpretation of Scripture. It is to be rejected.

Conclusions

We have seen that the Calvinists’ interpretation of the eternal divine decree and God’s sovereignty amounts to a universal divine causal determinism.  Hopefully, you may have begun to grasp the negative logical and moral implications of this theistic determinism.  In a world that is predetermined by God down to the minutest details, which includes everyone’s thoughts, beliefs, desires, and actions, what happens to human freedom, decision-making, and choices?  What happens to personal moral responsibility, culpability, judgment, and justice?  And what do we do with the fact that everyone’s eternal destiny is already decided unilaterally by God himself and has absolutely nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else?  What do human beings become in a world in which God predetermined every detail? Robots? Puppets? These analogies are appropriate. Furthermore, who is among the elect, and who is among the non-elect, remains unknown to us.  The Calvinist will respond that, regardless of these problematic implications, we need to accept these Calvinist tenets because the Bible teaches them.

But how do we know the Bible teaches them, especially when they do not square with the fact that the Bible overwhelmingly testifies to a contingent reality and human responsibility?  How do we know this is what the Bible teaches when theistic determinism wreaks logical and moral havoc with other things that this same Bible clearly teaches, especially regarding the definition of the gospel as “good news,” the nature of faith, and God’s character as loving and just? Where has the gospel gone? You may also be asking, if God is the sole agent and cause of everything that occurs, doesn’t that make him the source and doer of all evil?  If not, why not? Moreover, if you cannot know that God loves you, desires that you be saved, and has provided for your salvation, how does that influence your relationship to God and the meaning and purpose of life?  These questions are profound and therefore need answers. Calvinists need to answer them. We will deal with them in due course.

Having reviewed the Reformed Calvinist doctrines, we can conclude that Calvinism amounts to a theistic determinism.  That theistic determinism, by virtue of being a determinism, is contrary to Scripture. As such, Calvinism is unbiblical.

How Calvinists Get God’s Sovereignty Wrong
Leighton Flowers | Calvinism | Soteriology 101

Calvinists love to talk about God’s sovereignty, but do they define sovereignty correctly? Calvinists typically choose to define sovereignty as meticulous determinism, i.e. that God controls and/or brings about everything that happens…including all evil. Check out the full video here:    Calvinism is Determinism  

Of course there is a fatal flaw involved in this thinking, one “I” point out here in this post on Al Mohler… however, the flaw, in short, is this:

  • Thus in a world governed by meticulous, divine determinism, beliefs are not the product of examination, analysis, reason and contemplation whereby we search for truth and weigh various options and make informed decisions. Rather they are just the spin-offs of God’s universal, exhaustive, meticulous divine decrees. White would have to concede that a person who believes in meticulous, divine determinism does so for the same reason that another person disbelieves meticulous, divine determinism. It has nothing to do with evaluation, truth and reason—and everything to do with what has been determined for them to believe! — A Theology in Tension (hat-tip to SOTO 101, “Calvinism’s Greatest Fallacy“)

The following is with a Hat-Tip to Brian H.W. — adding to a thought I had:

Religio-Political Talk (RPT), Here’s enough that should get Calvinists to rethink! Unfortunately too many are now too heavily invested in defending it, their pride keeps them from rejecting it.

Those who call themselves “Calvinist” – On which of the following do you DISAGREE with Calvin… and why label yourself after the name of a fallible man? Would Jesus want you to?

  1. Evanescent Grace: God making some reprobates think they are elect to better convict them
  2. Impassibility: God did not grieve in his heart for the lost in Noah’s day
  3. Capital Punishment for heretics: Including those who write against his doctrine of predestination
  4. Born to Burn: Some are damned by God from birth, to be tormented in hell for God’s glory and pleasure.
  5. Scripture’s Description of God can not be known from His perspective: but only as a false one, not as He really is.
  6. Disproving Calvin’s predestination doctrine: according to Calvin is only attempted by those who think they are wiser than the Holy Spirit.

1) “… experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. … a taste of heavenly gifts, … a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.” (Institutes – 3.2.11)

2) “The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him…. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose….” (Comm. Gen 6:6)

3) In his letter to the church in Poitiers, #389 SLW6 – “…papers and books of his Castalion [former reformer in Geneva with Calvin], in which an attempt was made to impugn our doctrine touching predestination, have been condemned with a prohibition to publish them 👉on pain of death👈…. that indeed the least we can expect is that the Seigneurs, to whom have been entrusted the sword and authority, should not permit the faith in which they are instructed to be lightly spoken of in their own city. “

4) “…he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are 👉doomed from the womb👈 to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (Institutes – 3.23.6) And – “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was 👉his pleasure to doom👈 to destruction.” Calvin, ICR, 3.21.7

5) “…any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is 👉to represent him not as he really is👈, but as we conceive of him.” (Institutes – 1.17.13)

6) “The observation with which I opened this discussion, I now repeat at its close: that no one will ever attempt to disprove the doctrine which I have set forth herein, but he who may imagine himself to be 👉wiser than the Spirit of God👈.” (Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Cole, p. 170, the translation by Reid says – “… no one can disprove…”, p.162)

Dumbing Down John Calvin via GROK (Romans Edition)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I also had to start this out with Doc Flowers

This is merely a posting of the raw Calvin and my asking GROK to “laymanize it,” so-to-speak. Meant for my own use in the future and others who might find it helpful:

Grok, can you put into layman’s understanding this older John Calvin quote, so it fits better with American English, please?

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. (latin. “Decretum quidem horribile, fateor.”; french. “Je confesse que ce decret nous doit epouvanter.”) Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. If anyone inveighs against God’s foreknowledge at this point, he stumbles rashly and heedlessly. What reason is there to accuse the Heavenly Judge because he was not ignorant of what was to happen? If there is any just or manifest complaint, it applies to predestination. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision. For as it pertains to his wisdom to foreknow everything that is to happen, so it pertains to his might to rule and control everything by his hand. And Augustine also skillfully disposes of this question, as of others: “We most wholesomely confess what we most correctly believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who created all things exceedingly good [cf. Gen 1:31], and foreknew that evil things would rise out of good, and also knew that it pertained to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil things to be . . . , so ordained the life of angels and men that in it he might first of all show what free will could do, and then what the blessing of his grace and the verdict of his justice could do. (Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace X. 27)”.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.xxiii.7 (The Library of Christian Classics), trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Westminster John Knox Press (January 1, 1960), pg 955-956

PARAPHRASE ONE from GROK:

Here’s a straightforward, modern American English paraphrase of that passage from John Calvin’s Institutes (Book III, Chapter 23, Section 7), breaking it down into plain talk while staying true to what he was saying:

Calvin is wrestling with this tough question: Why did Adam’s sin drag so many people—including babies and everyone else—into eternal damnation with no way out? The only answer is: because that’s what God decided, and it pleased Him to do it that way.

At this point, people who love to argue and talk endlessly about fairness have to shut up. They’ve got nothing left to say.

Yes, I admit it—this decision (or “decree”) of God’s is dreadful/horrible/awful. It’s shocking and hard to stomach. (That’s where the famous Latin “Decretum quidem horribile, fateor” comes from—he’s owning how tough it sounds.)

But no one can seriously deny that God knew ahead of time what would happen to humanity before He even created us. And the reason He knew it? Because He Himself planned and ordained it that way from the beginning.

If somebody tries to attack God just for knowing the future in advance, they’re being reckless and foolish. What’s wrong with God being all-knowing? The real issue isn’t His foreknowledge—it’s His predestination (His choice to decide and make it happen).

So don’t think it’s weird when I say this: God didn’t just predict that Adam would fall and that the whole human race would crash with him—He actually arranged it according to His own purpose and will.

Why? Because:

  • It belongs to God’s perfect wisdom to know everything that will ever happen.
  • It belongs to His almighty power to actively rule and direct everything that happens.

Calvin then quotes Augustine to back this up (in simpler terms): We rightly believe and confess that God—who created everything very good—knew evil would come out of good things. But He also knew that His supreme goodness and power could bring even greater good out of that evil (rather than never allowing evil at all). So God set up the lives of angels and humans in such a way that:

  • First, He would show what people could do with their free will.
  • Then, He would show what His grace could do to rescue some, and what His justice could do in judging others.

In short, Calvin is saying: This teaching about God sovereignly deciding some people’s eternal destinies (including allowing or ordaining the fall and its consequences) feels terrifying and hard to accept—he calls it dreadful himself—but it’s the clear teaching of Scripture. Attacking God’s foreknowledge misses the point; the real sticking point is His deliberate choice (predestination). And even though it’s mind-bending, God uses even the worst things to display both His mercy (to the saved) and His justice (to the unsaved), ultimately bringing good out of it all in line with His perfect plan.

This is classic Calvin: blunt about how unsettling the doctrine is, but insistent that we have to accept it because it’s what the Bible reveals about God’s absolute sovereignty.

PARAPHRASE TWO from GROK:

Here’s a more concise modern American English paraphrase of that Calvin passage (Institutes III.xxiii.7):Why did Adam’s sin doom so many people—including infants—to eternal death with no escape? Because God willed it that way, and it pleased Him.

People who love to debate this get silent here. Yes, I admit it—this decree is dreadful and horrifying. But no one can deny God knew the outcome before creating humanity—because He Himself decreed it.

Attacking God’s foreknowledge is pointless and reckless. The real issue is predestination—His deliberate choice to ordain the fall and its consequences, not just foresee them.

As God wisely knows all that will happen, so His power rules and directs everything. Augustine puts it well: God created all things good, foresaw evil arising from good, yet in His almighty goodness ordained human (and angelic) life to first show what free will can do, then display His grace to some and justice to others—ultimately bringing greater good from evil.

In plain terms: Calvin calls double predestination (election to life and reprobation to damnation) terrifying and hard to accept—he owns how awful it sounds—but insists it’s biblical truth about God’s total sovereignty. God doesn’t just predict disaster; He sovereignly plans it to reveal both mercy and justice.

Grok, at this link there is a commentary by John Calvin on Romans 9:19-21, can you modernize and paraphrase this to American English please.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xiii.v.html

PARAPHRASE ONE from GROK:

Here’s a concise, modern American English paraphrase of John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 9:19-21 (from his Commentary on Romans, as found at the linked CCEL page). I’ve kept it straightforward and easy to follow while staying faithful to Calvin’s meaning—he’s defending God’s absolute sovereignty in election and reprobation (choosing some for mercy, passing over others for judgment) against human objections.

Verse 19 – The objection Paul anticipates:

Paul knows this teaching (that God hardens whom He wills and has mercy on whom He wills) triggers huge pushback. Our sinful human nature (“the flesh”) explodes in anger when it hears that people who end up lost were destined by God’s will to destruction. So Paul quotes the typical angry comeback from unbelievers:

“Why does God still blame us? If He’s the one who made us the way we are and controls everything we do, then He’s just punishing His own creation! We can’t fight Him—He always wins. So His judgment is unfair, and His power is basically tyrannical.”

It’s like they’re shifting all blame to God and then raging at Him for it. (Calvin notes this is similar to how medieval theologians foolishly debated God’s “absolute power” as if He could act arbitrarily without regard to His own justice.)

Verse 20 – Paul’s first response: Shut up and remember who you are!

Paul doesn’t give a long philosophical defense right away. Instead, he shuts down the blasphemy with a blunt reminder of human limits:

“But who do you think you are, O mere human, arguing back against God? Does the thing that’s made get to talk back to the one who made it and say, ‘Why did you make me like this?'”

Calvin explains: Paul starts here because the highest and ultimate reason for everything is God’s will—nothing is higher. If someone claims God arbitrarily rejects some and chooses others out of pure grace, Paul doesn’t deny it; he affirms it! People have no right to challenge or accuse God.

Why doesn’t Paul just say, “There’s a good reason for the difference”? Because any deeper explanation would be beyond our grasp anyway. Paul isn’t dodging because he lacks answers—he’s reminding us of our ignorance and weakness. Proud people complain that Paul gives no “cause” beyond God’s secret counsel, but that’s the point: This is a mystery we can’t fully understand, so we should humbly adore it instead of demanding explanations our tiny minds can’t handle. God stays silent on the “why” not because there’s no reason, but because our small brains can’t contain His infinite wisdom. He accommodates our frailty by calling us to humility and self-control.

Paul hammers home that God’s will is always just, even if we don’t see the reasons. Denying God the right to decide the fate of His creatures robs Him of His proper authority.

The potter-clay illustration (verses 20-21):

Paul uses a vivid analogy (echoing Isaiah 45:9 more than Jeremiah 18:6) to crush human arrogance:

The clay has no right to complain to the potter. The potter has full authority over the clay—he can shape the same lump into whatever he wants: one vessel for honorable use (like a fancy vase), another for ordinary or even dishonorable use (like a trash pot).

Calvin stresses: This isn’t about raw brute force (“power” here means rightful authority, not just might). The potter isn’t stealing anything from the clay by shaping it however he pleases. Similarly, God doesn’t take away anything from humans by deciding their destiny—whether for mercy or judgment.

To deny God this sovereign right as the ultimate decider of life and death is to strip Him of part of His glory and honor.

In plain terms: Calvin says Paul is teaching that God’s choices in salvation (electing some to mercy, hardening/ordaining others to judgment) rest ultimately on His free will, not on anything in us. Human objections that scream “Unfair!” are arrogant and ignorant—like clay yelling at the potter. We should bow in humble awe rather than demand answers we can’t comprehend. This upholds God’s justice and sovereignty without making Him arbitrary or tyrannical—His will is always right, even when hidden from us.

PARAPHRASE TWO from GROK:

Here’s a more concise modern American English paraphrase of John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 9:19-21:The angry objection (v. 19):

Paul anticipates the furious pushback: “If God hardens some and has mercy on others according to His will, why does He still blame us? We’re just His creation—He made us this way and controls everything. Punishing us is like punishing His own work. We can’t fight Him, so His judgment is unfair and His power is tyrannical!”

People shift blame to God, then rage at Him for it—like medieval thinkers foolishly debating God’s “absolute power” as if He could act without justice.

Paul’s response (v. 20):

Paul doesn’t dive into deep explanations first. He shuts it down bluntly: “Who do you think you are, mere human, arguing back at God? Does the thing made get to question the Maker: ‘Why did you make me like this?'”

Calvin explains: The ultimate reason is God’s sovereign will—nothing tops that. Paul affirms (doesn’t deny) that God freely chooses some for mercy and passes over others for judgment. Humans have no right to challenge Him or call it unfair.

Why no “just reasons” given? Because any full answer is beyond our grasp. Paul isn’t short on logic—he’s reminding us of our limits. We’re dust; we can’t comprehend God’s infinite wisdom. Proud critics complain he gives no cause, but that’s intentional: This mystery should be humbly worshiped, not dissected by our curiosity. God stays silent to keep us modest and sober.

Paul keeps stressing: God’s hidden-will decisions are always just. Denying Him the right to shape destinies robs Him of His authority.

The potter-clay picture (vv. 20-21):

Paul uses the analogy (mainly from Isaiah 45:9): The clay has zero right to complain to the potter. From the same lump, the potter can make one vessel for honor, another for common use—it’s his rightful authority, not arbitrary force.

Calvin adds: The potter doesn’t steal from the clay by shaping it. Likewise, God doesn’t rob humans by deciding their end (mercy or judgment). To deny God this role as ultimate Lord over life and death strips Him of due honor.

Bottom line: Calvin says Paul’s teaching upholds God’s total sovereignty in election/reprobation. Human cries of “unfair!” are arrogant ignorance—like clay yelling at the potter. We should bow in awe, not demand answers our finite minds can’t handle. God’s will is righteous, even when mysterious.

Grok, at this link there is a commentary by John Calvin on Romans 9:22-23, can you modernize and paraphrase this to American English please.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xiii.vi.html

PARAPHRASE ONE from GROK:

Here’s a concise, modern American English paraphrase of John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 9:22-23 (from his Commentary on Romans, as at the linked CCEL page). I’ve kept it straightforward and true to his intent—he’s defending God’s justice in predestination by showing how both reprobation (vessels of wrath) and election (vessels of mercy) display God’s glory.

Verse 22 – God’s patient endurance of the “vessels of wrath”

Paul’s second answer: Even though God’s plan is mysterious and beyond full human understanding, His perfect justice is clear in both saving the elect and dooming the reprobate.

He asks rhetorically: “What if God, wanting to display His wrath and make His power known, patiently endured (with great forbearance) the vessels of wrath—people prepared/fitted for destruction?”

Calvin explains: These are people God has appointed to destruction as examples of His vengeance and anger. Yet He doesn’t wipe them out instantly—He holds back judgment for a time. Why?

  • To showcase His severity (terrifying others with these examples).
  • To demonstrate His mighty power (using them in various ways to serve His purposes).
  • To make the vastness of His mercy toward the elect shine even brighter by contrast.

If God does all this, what’s unfair or blameworthy? Nothing. Paul doesn’t explain why certain people are prepared for destruction—that reason is hidden in God’s secret, unsearchable counsel. We should worship His justice rather than demand to probe it.

He calls them “vessels” because all creatures serve as instruments of God’s power. The reprobate are “vessels of wrath” because they display God’s judgments.

Verse 23 – Displaying the riches of God’s glory on the “vessels of mercy”

“…so that He might also make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.”

Calvin: This is the flip side—the second purpose. By contrasting the doomed with the saved, God’s infinite mercy toward the elect stands out more vividly. What makes the elect different? Nothing in themselves—they were headed for the same destruction but were graciously rescued by God, not by any merit of their own.

Seeing how miserable everyone else is (under God’s wrath) highlights how praiseworthy His kindness is. “Glory” here refers mainly to God’s mercy (His chief glory shines in acts of grace and kindness).

The elect are “vessels of mercy” because God uses them to display and glorify His mercy. Paul stresses that God Himself “prepared” them beforehand for glory—just as the reprobate were prepared for destruction—both tied to His secret eternal counsel (not something they did or earned).

In plain terms: Calvin says Paul’s point is that God’s choices in election and reprobation aren’t unjust. Letting the wicked persist for a while and then judging them reveals His wrath, power, and severity. Saving the elect reveals His boundless mercy even more dramatically by comparison. Everything serves to magnify God’s glory. We don’t get to question the “why” behind who gets what—it’s God’s sovereign right, and we should humbly adore His justice rather than accuse Him.

PARAPHRASE TWO from GROK:

Here’s a more concise modern American English paraphrase of John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 9:22-23:

Verse 22 – God patiently endures the “vessels of wrath”

Paul’s second defense: Even though God’s plan is mysterious, His justice is obvious in both the doom of the reprobate and the salvation of the elect.

He asks: “What if God, desiring to show His wrath and reveal His power, patiently endured (with great forbearance) the vessels of wrath—people fitted/prepared for destruction?”

Calvin: These are people God has sovereignly appointed to destruction to display His vengeance. Yet He doesn’t destroy them immediately—He holds back judgment to:

  • Demonstrate His terrifying severity (warning others through their examples).
  • Make His mighty power known (using them to serve His purposes in various ways).
  • Highlight the vastness of His mercy toward the elect by stark contrast.

Nothing here is unjust. Paul doesn’t explain why some are prepared for destruction—that reason is hidden in God’s secret, unsearchable counsel. We should adore His justice, not probe it.

“Vessels” means instruments: All creatures serve God’s power. The reprobate are “vessels of wrath” because they manifest God’s judgments.

Verse 23 – Revealing the riches of God’s glory on the “vessels of mercy”

“…so that He might also make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.”

Calvin: This is the contrasting purpose. By judging the reprobate, God’s infinite mercy to the elect shines brighter. The elect differ from the doomed only because God graciously rescues them from the same destruction—not by their merit, but by pure kindness. Seeing everyone else’s misery makes God’s mercy to them even more praiseworthy.

“Glory” here mainly means God’s mercy (His highest praise comes through acts of grace). The elect are “vessels of mercy” because God uses them to display and glorify His mercy.

God Himself “prepared” them beforehand for glory—just as the reprobate were prepared for destruction—both rooted in His eternal, secret counsel.

In short: Calvin says Paul’s argument shows God’s predestination is just. Enduring the wicked before judging them reveals wrath, power, and severity. Saving the elect reveals boundless mercy by comparison. All of it magnifies God’s glory. We don’t question the hidden “why”—we humbly worship His sovereign justice.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Discuss Calvin’s 5-Points

Published by Papa Giorgio

In John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson he opens with this — and I have GROK put the old English into more modern terms.

The green box that follows the original text is GROK modernizing it

The sight of your well known hand writing in your favour of 25. Feb. last, gave me great pleasure, as it proved your arm to be restored and your pen still manageable—may it continue till you shall become as perfect a calvinist as I am in one particular. Poor Calvins infirmities his rheumatism his gouts and sciatics made him frequently cry out Mon dieu Jusque au quand Lord how long! Prat once Chief Justice of new york always tormented with infirmities dreamt that he was situated on a single rock in the midst of the Atlantick ocean, He heard a voice. “Why mourns the bard Apollo bids thee2 rise, renounce the dust,3 and claim thy native skies.”—

Here’s a modern English update of the excerpt from John Adams’s letter to Thomas Jefferson (dated March 10, 1823), keeping the original meaning, tone, and humor intact while making the language clearer and more contemporary:

Seeing your familiar handwriting in your letter from February 25th gave me great pleasure. It showed that your arm has recovered and you can still write easily—may that continue until you become as much of a Calvinist as I am in one respect. Poor Calvin’s ailments—his rheumatism, gout, and sciatica—often made him cry out, “Mon Dieu, jusqu’à quand?” which means “Lord, how long!” Pratt, who was once Chief Justice of New York and always plagued by health problems, dreamed that he was stranded on a lone rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Then he heard a voice say:

“Why does the bard mourn? Apollo bids you rise, renounce the dust, and claim your native skies.”

(For context: Adams is playfully teasing Jefferson about enduring old-age infirmities with Calvinist patience, referencing John Calvin’s sufferings and a poetic anecdote about Benjamin Pratt, an 18th-century New York judge known for his poetry and health issues.)

Here is the response to Adams via Jefferson:

The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of ‘mon Dieu! jusque à quand’! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. he was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. if ever man worshipped a false god, he did. the being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. it would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. 

[….]

Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that ‘God is a spirit.’ 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is. ‘πνευμα ὁ θεος.’ down to the 3d century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. so says Origen. ‘Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapse4 corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.’ these are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says ‘appellatio ασωματον apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.’ so also Tertullian ‘quis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in suâ effigie.’ Tertullian. these two fathers were of the 3d century. Calvin’s character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. but the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st chapter of John, in these words, ‘εν αρχη ην ὁ λογος, και ὁ λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ὁ λογος. οὑτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον. παντα δε αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε ἑν ὁ γεγονεν.’ which truly translated means ‘in the beginning God existed, and reason [or mind] was with God, and that mind was God. this was in the beginning with God. all things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.’ yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word λογος. one of it’s legitimate meanings indeed is ‘a word.’ but, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning ‘reason,’ equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. knowing how incomprehensible it was that ‘a word,’ the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. the Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. the truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. but we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

So much for your quotation of Calvin’s ‘mon dieu! jusqu’a quand’ in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. may we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation ‘Well done, good and faithful servants.’

Here’s a modern English update of this excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Adams (dated April 11, 1823), preserving the original meaning, passion, and philosophical tone while making the language clearer and more accessible:

The wishes you expressed in your last letter—that I might live long and healthy until I become a Calvinist, at least in crying out “My God! How long?!”—would make me immortal if they came true. But I can never join Calvin in addressing his god that way. He was essentially an atheist (which I could never be), or rather, his religion was daemonism. If any man ever worshiped a false god, it was him. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore—the Creator and benevolent governor of the world—but a daemon with a malignant spirit. It would be more forgivable to believe in no god at all than to blaspheme the true God by attributing such atrocious qualities to Him.

[….]

Of the true nature of this Being, we know nothing. Jesus tells us that “God is a spirit” (John 4:24), but without defining what a spirit is—”πνεῦμα ὁ θεός” (pneuma ho theos). Down to the 3rd century, it was still considered material, though of a lighter, subtler substance than our gross bodies. So says Origen: “Therefore God, to whom the soul is similar, according to Origen, is actually corporeal, but incorporeal only in comparison to heavier bodies.” These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says that the term “incorporeal” (ἀσώματον) is unusual and unknown in our [Christian] writers. Tertullian says the same: “Who will deny that God is a body, even though God is a spirit? For spirit is a body of its own kind, in its own form.” Both of these Church Fathers were from the 3rd century.

Calvin’s portrayal of the Supreme Being seems mostly copied from the Jewish conception. But reforming those blasphemous attributes and replacing them with ones more worthy, pure, and sublime appears to have been Jesus’s main goal in his discourses with the Jews. His doctrine of the world’s creation is very clearly stated in the first three verses of the Gospel of John:”Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.”Which, truly translated, means: “In the beginning, God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it not one thing that was made came into being.” Yet this text—so plainly declaring Jesus’s doctrine that the world was created by the supreme intelligent Being—has been twisted by modern Christians to build up a second person in their tritheism through a mistranslation of the word λόγος (logos). One of its legitimate meanings is indeed “word,” but in that sense it produces meaningless nonsense. The other equally legitimate meaning—”reason”—explains rationally God’s eternal preexistence and His creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that a mere “word”—the simple action of voice and speech organs—could create a world, they instead turn this “word” into a second pre-existing being and attribute the creation of the universe to him rather than to God. The atheist here boasts about the uselessness of such a God and prefers the simpler idea of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies of Jesus’s doctrines are those who call themselves their interpreters, who have perverted them to build a system of fantasy that is utterly incomprehensible and has no foundation in his actual words. And the day will come when the mystical story of Jesus being generated by the Supreme Being as His father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the myth of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will sweep away all this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. So much for your quotation of Calvin’s “Mon Dieu! jusqu’à quand!” When addressed to the God of Jesus—and our God—I join you in it wholeheartedly, and I await His time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again there, in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approval: “Well done, good and faithful servants.”

And here GROK did a redo making it :”more concise”

Here’s a more concise modern English version of Jefferson’s response (April 11, 1823):

Your wish that I live long enough to become a Calvinist—at least in crying “My God! How long?”—would make me immortal. But I can never pray to Calvin’s god. He was essentially an atheist, or his religion was daemonism. If anyone worshiped a false god, it was him. The being in his five points is not the God we both acknowledge—the benevolent Creator and governor of the world—but a malignant daemon. It is more forgivable to believe in no god than to blaspheme the true one with Calvin’s atrocious attributes.

We know nothing of this Being’s nature. Jesus said “God is a spirit” (John 4:24), but did not define it. Until the 3rd century, Christians considered spirit material, though subtler than flesh—as Origen and Tertullian both affirmed.

Calvin’s image of God largely copies the harsh Jewish portrayal. Jesus’s main mission seems to have been correcting those blasphemous attributes and teaching purer, more sublime ones. His cosmology is clearly stated in John 1:1–3:“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God… All things were made through it.”

Properly translated, Logos means “reason” or “mind”: In the beginning God existed, reason was with God, and reason was God. All things were created by it. Modern Christians, however, mistranslate Logos as “word” to invent a second divine person and build their tritheism. This turns a rational account of creation into incomprehensible jargon—and gives atheists an easy target.

The worst enemies of Jesus’s teachings are the so-called experts who have twisted them into a fanciful, groundless system. One day, the virgin birth of Jesus will be ranked with Minerva springing from Jupiter’s head. But I hope the spread of reason and free thought in America will sweep away this artificial scaffolding and restore Jesus’s original, genuine doctrines—the work of the greatest reformer of human errors.

As for Calvin’s “My God! How long?”—when addressed to the God of Jesus, our God—I join you wholeheartedly. I await His will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues and hear together: “Well done, good and faithful servants.”

GROK offered to explain Jefferson’s “5-Points Critique,” here that is:

Thomas Jefferson’s critique of Calvinism’s “five points” appears in his April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams. He did not break it down point-by-point but offered a sweeping condemnation, calling the God portrayed in these doctrines a “daemon of malignant spirit” rather than the benevolent Creator he and Adams revered. Jefferson viewed Calvin’s theology as blasphemous, arguing it would be better to believe in no God at all than to attribute such “atrocious” qualities to the divine. The Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)These points, formalized after John Calvin’s death at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) in response to Arminianism, summarize key Reformed doctrines on salvation:

  • Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly corrupted by sin, incapable of choosing God or doing spiritual good without divine intervention.
  • Unconditional Election: God chooses (elects) certain individuals for salvation based solely on His will, not on any foreseen merit or faith.
  • Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption): Christ’s death effectively atones only for the sins of the elect, not for all humanity.
  • Irresistible Grace: God’s grace effectively calls the elect to faith; they cannot ultimately resist it.
  • Perseverance of the Saints: The elect will persevere in faith and cannot finally lose salvation.

Jefferson’s Core Objection

Jefferson, influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, Deism, and Unitarian leanings, emphasized a God of benevolence, reason, and moral governance. He saw Calvinism’s emphasis on God’s absolute sovereignty—especially in predestination (including “double predestination,” where God decrees both election to salvation and reprobation to damnation)—as portraying a tyrannical, arbitrary deity. This God predestines most of humanity to eternal punishment without regard to their actions, which Jefferson found cruel and incompatible with divine goodness. He contrasted this with Jesus’s teachings, which he believed focused on moral reform, free will, and a loving God. Jefferson also linked Calvinism to historical intolerance (e.g., Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus) and saw it as a perversion of true Christianity. In essence, Jefferson rejected the five points not for subtle theological nuances but because they collectively depicted a God he considered morally repugnant—a “malignant” being closer to a demon than the rational, kind Creator revealed (in his view) by nature and Jesus’s ethical teachings. This reflected his broader anti-Trinitarian, anti-orthodox stance, favoring a simplified, moralistic Christianity over doctrinal systems like Calvinism.

Keep in mind GROK is not a theologian. I asked GROK about John Adam’s views of Calvinism, this was the short answer:

John Adams, raised in a Puritan New England Congregationalist family with strong Calvinist roots, ultimately rejected core Calvinist doctrines and evolved into a Unitarian Christian.

Early Rejection of Calvinism

He rejected key Calvinist tenets early in life, including:

  • Predestination
  • Total depravity
  • Limited atonement
  • Eternal damnation for most

He called Calvinism “frigid,” irrational, and marked by a “domineering and persecuting spirit.” Influenced by liberal Congregationalist preachers and Enlightenment rationalism, Adams viewed strict Calvinism as incompatible with a benevolent God and human free will. He leaned toward Arminianism (emphasizing free choice in salvation) before fully embracing Unitarianism.

Self-Identification as Unitarian

In later years, Adams explicitly identified as a Unitarian, writing to his son John Quincy Adams in 1816: “We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than Sixty Years…” He rejected the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, original sin, and salvation by arbitrary grace alone, favoring a rational, moral Christianity focused on benevolence, good works, and the Sermon on the Mount.

Playful Teasing in Correspondence

In his famous 1823 correspondence with Thomas Jefferson (the letters you referenced earlier), Adams playfully teased Jefferson about old-age sufferings, joking that Jefferson might yet become “as perfect a Calvinist as I am in one particular”—referring only to enduring infirmities with stoic patience (echoing John Calvin’s own cries of “Mon Dieu! Jusqu’à quand?”). This was ironic humor, not an endorsement of Calvinism. Adams shared Jefferson’s disdain for Calvin’s “atrocious attributes” and predestinarian God, aligning with Jefferson’s view of a benevolent Creator.

Overall Religious Outlook

Adams remained deeply religious—a “church-going animal” who believed in divine providence, prayer, and morality’s role in society—but his faith was liberal, tolerant, and anti-dogmatic. He saw religion as essential for public virtue yet warned against ecclesiastical tyranny. Historians describe him as a blend of Puritan heritage and Enlightenment reason, ultimately a conservative Unitarian who retained belief in Jesus as a moral teacher (though not divine) and an active God.

In short, Adams was emphatically not a Calvinist; he detested its harsher doctrines and spent much of his life moving away from them toward Unitarian rationalism.

Mind you, I am not a Unitarian whatsoever, but needless to say not only would Calvin had burned Christ at the stake in Geneva, he would have done the same to the Founders of America!

BAPTIST MARTYRS

This Baptist History is brought to you by Steve Brady at Fairhaven Baptist Church in Chesterton, Indiana. (Full playlist of 50 Baptists You Should Know here)

Here is what was said in a post that included the above drawing via Facebook:

It has been decreed this day by the Council of the Two Hundred (of Zurich) that the leaders of the Catabaptists shall be cast into the Tower, in which they formerly lay, and allured by bread and water diet until either they give up the ghost or surrender. It is also added that he who after this is dipped shall be submerged permanently (qtti posthac tingatur, prossus mcrgatur); this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).

This is but one of numerous decrees by city councils in Calvinist principalities levied against “Catabaptists”. This word means someone who opposes baptism, but even in their usage of the term the Calvinists reveal themselves to be liars. The Baptists didn’t oppose baptism, they opposed infant baptism, which is nowhere evidenced in Scripture. The Calvinists knew Baptists baptized believing adults – that’s one of the reasons they murdered them – “submerged permanently,” as opposed to submerged briefly, in baptism.

Note that in his final comment, Zwingli writes that this is “not published”. He wanted the homicidal order to remain a secret. So he knew that what he was doing was immoral. He just didn’t want the general population to know about it.

Zwingli and the Calvinists were murderers. They knew they were murderers. They congratulated themselves on being murderers. And history has preserved the evidence of their murders.

I asked GROK to explain the above a little more and then GROK offered up info on Felix Manz

Key Historical Context

In 1525, a group of Zwingli’s former followers (including Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz) broke away because they believed Zwingli and the Zurich authorities were reforming the church too slowly and compromising with civil government. They rejected infant baptism (paedobaptism) as unscriptural, insisting baptism should be for believing adults only—who could consciously confess faith. On January 21, 1525, they performed the first adult baptisms in Zurich, marking the start of the Anabaptist movement (from Greek ana- meaning “again,” implying “re-baptizers” in the eyes of critics, since they viewed infant baptism as invalid).Zwingli strongly defended infant baptism (seeing it as the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision, a covenant sign for children of believers). After public debates in 1525 failed to resolve the issue, the Zurich Council sided with Zwingli and began cracking down on the Anabaptists, viewing their separatism, refusal of oaths/civic duties, and defiance of authority as threats to social and religious order.

The Decree and Quote Explained

The decree Zwingli describes had two parts:

  • Leaders of the Anabaptists (called “Catabaptists” here—see below) were to be imprisoned in the tower on bread-and-water rations until they recanted or died.
  • Anyone who continued to perform adult (“re-“)baptism would be executed by drowning (a grim, ironic punishment: “whoever dips shall be dipped/submerged permanently”).

This was an escalation from earlier penalties (fines, banishment). A similar but formalized mandate followed shortly after, and the first execution under it was Felix Manz, drowned in the Limmat River on January 5, 1527. Several others followed in Zurich before the movement was suppressed there.

Regarding your quote’s final line: “this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).” Most historical sources (including direct translations of the letter) actually read that the decision was published—or at least do not mention secrecy. It’s possible this is a transcription/translation variant in the specific edition you referenced, or a slight misremembering. Zwingli’s letter was private correspondence, not a public statement, and he expresses approval of the council’s action without hinting at shame or secrecy. The drowning penalty was openly enforced later, so it wasn’t kept hidden long-term.

On “Catabaptists”

This was a term Zwingli and some allies (like Oecolampadius) briefly used in Latin writings around 1525–1527 (e.g., in his 1527 book In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus—”Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists”). From Greek kata- (down/against), it carried a double meaning:

  • “Against baptism” (implying they undermined true [infant] baptism).
  • Ironically, “down-dipper” or “one who submerges/drowns” (playing on immersion baptism and foreshadowing the drowning punishment).

It was a derogatory label, not what the group called themselves (they preferred “Brethren” or similar). The more common term “Anabaptist” stuck. You’re correct that they didn’t “oppose baptism” outright—they practiced believer’s baptism (often by immersion or pouring)—but critics framed it as rejecting the established sacrament.

Broader Perspective

The Anabaptists were seen as dangerous radicals in the 16th century (both by Catholics and magisterial Protestants like Zwingli/Calvin/Luther) because their ideas challenged the unity of church and state. Persecution was harsh and widespread: drowning in Protestant Zurich, burning/beheading elsewhere. Modern historians view this as a tragic episode where Reformation leaders, fearing anarchy, used state power to enforce orthodoxy—similar to how Catholics persecuted Protestants.

From a Baptist perspective (as your text seems to reflect), Anabaptists are often seen as forerunners of believer’s baptism and church-state separation. Zwingli and the Zurich Reformed tradition defended infant baptism and a closer church-government alliance.

This event highlights the deep divisions within the early Reformation—Zwingli started as a bold reformer against Catholic practices but ended up opposing those he saw as going “too far.”

[….]

Background on Felix Manz

Felix Manz (c. 1498–1527) was a Swiss Anabaptist leader and co-founder of the Swiss Brethren, the earliest Anabaptist congregation. Initially a follower and collaborator of Huldrych Zwingli (helping with Bible translation), Manz broke away over theological differences, particularly the rejection of infant baptism in favor of believer’s baptism (adult baptism upon confession of faith). He participated in the first adult baptisms on January 21, 1525, at his mother’s home in Zurich, marking the birth of the Anabaptist movement.Manz was arrested multiple times between 1525 and 1527 for preaching and performing adult baptisms, seen by Zurich authorities as seditious and threatening to social order.

The Decree Leading to Execution

On March 7, 1526, the Zurich City Council—aligned with Zwingli’s Reformed position—issued an edict making adult “re-baptism” punishable by drowning. This ironic penalty (“a third baptism”) was intended to mock Anabaptist views on immersion baptism.

Details of the Execution: January 5, 1527

Manz was rearrested in December 1526 while baptizing in the Grüningen region and imprisoned in Zurich’s Wellenberg Tower. He refused to recant during interrogation.On January 5, 1527, around 3 p.m., he was sentenced to death for persisting in Anabaptism, separatism, and defiance of authority. Led in procession from prison through the fish market to the Limmat River (flowing through central Zurich), Manz praised God and preached to onlookers.

Contemporary accounts (e.g., from Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor) describe:

  • His hands bound behind his knees with a pole inserted (a common binding for drowning executions).
  • Placed in a boat and rowed to mid-river (near a fishing hut/platform).
  • Pushed into the icy water to drown.

A Reformed preacher accompanied him, urging recantation, but Manz remained steadfast. Crowds lined both banks.

Family Presence and Last Words

Manz’s mother (Anna Manz) and brother were present on the shore, encouraging him to stay firm in his faith—her cries reportedly rang out across the water.

As he was thrown in, Manz sang loudly in Latin: “In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum” (“Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit”—echoing Jesus’ words on the cross, Luke 23:46).His property was confiscated, and he was buried in a common grave.

Zwingli’s Role

Zwingli, once Manz’s mentor, debated against the Anabaptists publicly (e.g., 1525 disputations) and supported the council’s measures. While he did not personally order the execution, sources indicate he approved of the edict and viewed Anabaptism as heretical and anarchic. No record shows him opposing the drowning.

Legacy and Memorial

Manz became the first Anabaptist martyr executed by Protestants (predating radical events like the Münster Rebellion). His death inspired the movement rather than suppressing it.A memorial plaque on the Limmat River wall at Schipfe (opposite No. 43) commemorates Manz and other drowned Anabaptists (1527–1532):The plaque reads (in translation): “Here in the middle of the Limmat from a fishing platform were drowned Felix Manz and five other Anabaptists during the Reformation 1527 to 1532.”This event highlights the tragic intolerance within the early Reformation, where theological disputes led to state-enforced executions.